1. Initial Screening by the Editorial Office

All manuscripts submitted to JAEM undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team. The purpose of this stage is to evaluate the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, structural completeness, and adherence to ethical and formatting guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be returned to authors for revision or rejected without external review.

2. Plagiarism Check

Before being sent for peer review, manuscripts are screened using similarity detection tools to ensure the originality of the work. Manuscripts exceeding the journal’s acceptable similarity threshold, or showing evidence of unethical practices such as plagiarism or redundant publication, may be rejected or returned for clarification.

3. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary review are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the topic. Reviewer selection is based on academic qualifications, research specialization, past review performance, and the absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial team ensures that reviewer identities remain confidential.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers conduct an in-depth evaluation of the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, data validity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the field. They also assess the coherence of arguments, quality of writing, completeness of references, and alignment with journal standards. Reviewers are required to provide constructive, objective, and actionable feedback within the assigned timeframe.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Upon completing their evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

• Accept (no revisions required)
• Minor Revision (small improvements needed)
• Major Revision (substantial changes required before reconsideration)
• Reject (manuscript is unsuitable for publication)

The Editor-in-Chief reviews all reports and makes a decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the journal’s editorial standards.

6. Revision and Author Response

If revisions are requested, authors must respond to each reviewer comment in a detailed and systematic manner. Revised manuscripts must highlight the modifications made and include a response document explaining how all reviewer concerns have been addressed. Failure to revise adequately may result in rejection.

7. Second-Round Review (If Necessary)

For manuscripts requiring major revisions or methodological clarification, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. This step ensures that all critical issues have been resolved before acceptance.

8. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after considering all reviewer feedback, author responses, and editorial assessments. Decisions are communicated to authors in writing. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and production.

9. Copyediting, Proofreading & Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to the journal’s style. Authors review proofs for accuracy before final online publication. Minor edits for readability or formatting may be made by the editorial team.

10. Transparency, Confidentiality & Ethical Standards

All parties involved in the peer review process must maintain strict confidentiality. Reviewers may not share or use manuscript content for personal advantage. The journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and will take action in cases of suspected ethical violations, including plagiarism, manipulated data, authorship disputes, or conflicts of interest.